Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba

SSS108 in a glasshouse
SSS108 apparently argues that Andries' involvement in criticising Sathya Sai Baba as a result of his disillusionment and subsequent activities as a critic proves he misuses Wikipedia "as a venting" and to "push his POV".

The following is to the point only if this POV of SSS108 on Andries' involvement is seen as having any weight in the arbitration. If so, then the same charges applly with equal or greater force to SSS108, whose websites which defend Sai Baba and his organisation at great length and, as far as can be seen, with a mass of aggressive charges and conjectures about the character of just about every known critic of Sai Baba - including Andries - on very thin grounds. A cursory visit to SSS108's websites is enough to convice of this, more so if combined with a look at http://www.saibabaexpose.com/JoeFAQ.htm and related links.

Conclusion: if SSS108's argumentation as to Andries is accepted, the high level of bias and intensity of SSS108's allegations illustrates his own policy to misuse Wikipedia for "venting" and to push his pro-Sai Baba POV. The rigidity of SSS108s opinions appears fundamental to the conflict and no amount of discussion between the two parties will therefore lead to any agreed result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.191.24.197 (talk • contribs) 17 August 2006

Outside view of jossi

 * Moved from main page

I have followed this dispute for quite sometime. In fact I solicited mediation on their behalf which they accepted. It is my opinion that further mediation will not result in any substantial movement forward in this dispute between Andries and SSS108, given the long history between these two editors. A user conduct RfC on Andries could be explored, although I doubt that this will resolve the dispute between them. An possible alternative would be that the ArbCom take this case and allow for the evidence phase to take place, in which the community can provide the same type of comments/feedback as it would be raised on a user conduct RfC, with the additional advantage that it could resolve the dispute between them, once and for all. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please wait a minute before closing
Seeing the article Sathya Sai Baba "progressing" while this RFAr proceeds, I'm uneasy with seeing no ruling concerning the future of the article. I'm all for forgiving Andries and SSS108, but even assuming the best of all faiths, I cannot see how the article Sathya Sai Baba can progress to something readable and encyclopedic while it is owned by these antagonists.

Just have a look! The article just crossed the 100k barrier and further growth is in progress. Both opponents by now use the not for pointing to references, but to actually include court records, interview texts, translation of Dutch newspaper articles and book chapters.

Pjacobi 07:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See my reply here To summarize it, the long citations are due to mutual distrust, not so much to push POVs. I do not think that using Dutch newspapers is wrong perse. Andries 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Andries
Andries 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) added question about contradictory guidelines. 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) added new point expressing concern about the number of disputes. 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Does not linking to purportedly unreliable websites also include the homepages of critics with their own articles of Sathya Sai Baba e.g. Robert Priddy (see ), Basava Premanand, M. Alan Kazlev (see here one of the webpages on the website authored, owned, and maintaind by Kazlev, linked to in his Wikipedia article), Sanal Edamaruku, Babu Gogineni, the late Abraham Kovoor, and the late H._Narasimhaiah? If the answer is yes, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline WP:EL that states "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one"? SeeRequests_for_mediation/ for a description of this dispute. (amended 09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC))
 * 2) Does not linking to unreliable website also include wikipedia user pages such as user:Andries See #Do unreliable websites also include the websites created and maintained by user:SSS108 especially for Wikipedia. In certain cases such as this one  the webpages on this website are simply copies that SSS108 took from the webpages of exbaba.com
 * 3) Is it okay to use webpages with copies of reputable sources on purportedly unreliable websites as convenenience links in the references. See e.g. here If the answer is no, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline Citing sources regarding intermediate sources that states "A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging the original source." (amended 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
 * 4) User:SSS108 removed a lot of information from the article talk page that I had moved from the article  to the talk page . In spite of my request to do so he did not justify in specifics why this removal was either justified by WP:BLP or the arbcom decision regarding posting external links. I object to mass removals of information from the talk page that are not motivated in specific terms if and where it violates WP:BLP or the arbcom decision.  SSS108 stated the intention to remove more of my future comments from the talk page  Is SSS108’s or my behaviour a violation of talk page etiquette?
 * 5) This may not be the place for it, but I also want to express my concern about the number of disputes between SSS108 and me on the Sathya Sai Baba article and related articles that seem to increase in the course of time. If it continues like this, then I will file two requests for comments per week without any end in sight. Regarding Pjacobi's request to step aside, I would like to point out that I am by far the greatest content creator on all articles related to Sathya Sai Baba during the past years. In the weeks that I was away from the article no new content or hardly new content was added to any of these articles. Andries 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) amended 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SSS108

 * Point 1: Wiki pages about a certain person can include a link to his/her homepage. The link Andries was/is trying to include on Robert Priddy's Wiki page is not his homepage. It is an Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba Site (one of three maintained by Priddy). Priddy's homepage is already listed on his wiki page.
 * Point 2: Andries agreed to the neutral geocities site in mediation with BostonMA . This site does not link to or promote any pro/anti site. Furthermore, the articles that Andries claims were taken from the exbaba site are not copyright protected to the exbaba site (nor were they ever originally published on the exbaba site). Therefore, the exbaba site cannot claim copyright status to the articles in question.
 * Point 3: If the reputable sources in question are duplicated on (never originally published on) biased, partison and controversial websites (such as the exbaba and saiguru sites), I think WP:RS prohibits this. Also, JzG expressed the opinion that citing these sources on any non-reputable website is a copyright violation.
 * Point 4: See FloNight's Thread & Tony Sidaway's Thread  & My Thread.
 * Point 5: Pjacobi requested both Andries and me to step aside from the Sathya Sai Baba article . I expressed my willingness to do so 3 times   . Andries has not expressed any willingness to step aside even once. Andries is reintroducing controversial edits without obtaining consensus. Andries should step aside and let other editors work on the article and he would not have to be repeatedly challenged. I am not the only editor disagreeing with Andries. All the other editors disagree with him about his recent edits. Even the person who responded to his RFC . Yet Andries is still fighting it. SSS108 talk-email 07:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway
I want to comment here on my dual role in this matter. My first response on this was that it seemed to be a matter for administrators to resolve, and I investigated as an administrator and warned Andries politely in my role as an administrator that in my view and that of other admins he was contravening the ruling in the arbitration case.

Andries has come back politely with what amount, in my view, to clear signals that he requires much closer direction on this matter. I suggested that clarification from the arbitrators might be a good way of resolving this matter, and his query here is the response. Andries has shown by his responses and actions that he is eager and willing to comply with the arbitration and in my role as a clerk I commend his queries to the Committee, While this is clearly a dispute that could have become very rancorous, it seems to me that Andries is doing his best to avoid that path and seek clarification. I also commend SSS108 for his civility in the course of expressing a difference of opinion in a forthright and honest manner.

I hope that this is not "crossing the streams". I hope it's clear that my views as an administrator and as a clerk are quite distinct. My regard for both participants here is very high. Their honesty and civility is impressive. --Tony Sidaway 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to wait any longer
I am not going to wait any longer for a clarification. I will edit the set of articles according to my interpretation of the arbcom decision. Andries 16:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba request nr. 2
Dispute about the fact whether an article about Sathya Sai Baba in salon.com qualifies as a reliable source. article in salon.com This question has already been treated extensively in mediation. Now user:SSS108 changed his opinion because he states that salon.com is a self professed tabloid and because he states that it is only published online. He says that he was unaware of this during mediation. Andries 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose a centralized discussion for the question whether salon.com is a reliable source. Talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia. Andries 23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * During mediation, I was under the impression that Salon.com was a published magazine. Since that time, I have since discovered that Salon.com is exclusively an internet tabloid. Goldberg's article is only available as an internet resource and has never been published by multiple reliable media sources. It is only available on Salon.com. David Talbot (founder of Salon.com) described Salon.com as a "progressive, smart tabloid" . When it comes to Biographies Of Living People, the standards are higher and stricter when the material in question is critical and potentially libelous. Since this article contains critical, negative and potentially libelous information against Sathya Sai Baba, it does not (in my opinion) meet the standards for reliable sources as outlined in WP:BLP and WP:RS. SSS108 talk-email 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Arguing that salon.com is not a reliable source is on the verge of evidencing bad faith. How many strikes will people get? JBKramer 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Salon.com, as an online tabloid, is generally considered reliable because their articles are published by reputable or reliable sources. The article in question has not been published by other reputable or reliable sources. The article looks and sounds like a tabloid-article and it is suspect for this reason alone. No one is attacking Salon.com as an entity. Rather, due to Salon's online tabloid status, the article in question has it's reliability in question. SSS108 talk-email 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with JBKramer that SSS108 attempts to remove information sourced to salon.com is close to being disruptive. Salon.com is never on paper and is used extensively throughout Wikipedia for living people, because it is a fine, accessible reputable source. It is irrelevant by whom or where is salon.com is cited because salon.com itself is a reputable source. The only reason why SSS108 wants to make an exception for the Sathya Sai Baba article seems to be because he does not agree with the critical stance of the Salon.com article on Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 00:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Salon has an editorial board, an editor-in-chief, and an extensive corrections section. I see no reason not to treat it as a reliable source.Thatcher131 00:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I made my case here: &. People are confusing Salon.com with a particular tabloid article on Salon.com, a self-professed online tabloid magazine (that has not been published anywhere else except on Salon.com). This particular article does not meet Wikipedia's policies of reliable sources, in my opinion. SSS108 talk-email 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the Salon article is a reliable source for the fact that there are numerous allegations. I would not use material regarding any particular allegation. That relies only on the victim's testimony. Any particular reported instance may easily be false. Salon is not a tabloid in the sense that its contents are reasonably considered unreliable. Fred Bauder 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fred, so are you saying that the following articles can be cited on Wikipedia? Since I do not hold a favorable opinion of Scalia, I will cite Salon.com and it's article about him to support the widely held opinion that he is "martyr", is a "a poster boy for intolerance, vitriol and questionable ethics", writes "masterpieces of contemptuous nastiness" and turns up "the volume on his vitriol so high that it's hard to hear anything". Fantastic! SSS108 talk-email 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Violating WP:POINT is a blockable offense. JBKramer 19:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

JBKramer, ArbCom is setting the standards. Are these the standards that ArbCom is saying are allowable? The above example shows the flaw in the reasoning of allowing stand-alone sources (which can be used and abused to push an agenda). I am surprised that no one is concerned about this. If Salon.com is allowed as a reliable stand-alone reference, anyone can make the argument that I just made above and get away with it. SSS108 talk-email 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not a court, and you are not convincing anyone. I suggest you stop now. JBKramer 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I will, once other ArbCom members hopefully comment on it. And I will accept their majority opinion on this matter. I am not alone in my objection either. SSS108 talk-email 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that any source that mixes up editorial content with regular reporting content should be treated differently than an ordinary news source, particularly when it is openly and intentionally biased in one direction as an active editorial decision. That is what Salon does and is the cause of my concern regarding it being an undisputed sole source.  I believe that Salon as a source should be disputable on the basis of original source bias. --Blue Tie 01:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)